Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Some remaining issues

I've done some editing of the draft this eve, but I have to ask:

  1. I've removed various weasel statements like "an idea that may be less well-known to Wikidata editors" from the draft (if you think these were good, then subst/Wikidata/Wikipedia and think again. ;-) ). How do we keep these from reocurring here?
  2. We need to have an introductory paragraph or two. These should be neutral, and perhaps they should be something that everyone that's been involved in drafting this RfC can sign before we launch this. Can someone suggest some words / take the (neutral) lead to seeking the necessary consensus to start this RfC when it's ready?
  3. We still need to fill out the "How reliable is Wikidata information?" section. Can someone do a first draft of this?
  4. "Why have this RfC now?" needs more work - I've redrafted it, but someone else needs to have another look.
  5. What are we missing in terms of background information? What will !voters want to know that we aren't currently explaining?
  6. How does this link in with the RfC proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Crosswiki_issues?
  7. We have far too many !vote options. I can't see how a vote on 7 different answers to a single question will actually give a consensus (unless we have a successor RfC). I think we need to prune them down to <5 options. However, I think there are still new options we need to add (and I've just aded one), so maybe we need to continue expanding this, then narrow this back down closer to the time that the RfC runs.
  8. We have a "Consequences" column that doesn't talk about the technical implementations (at least in some cases). When I've tried to add more about how things could be implemented, I've been reverted. How do we deal with this?
  9. The curent 1B "Subst only" says nothing about how these static values are maintained in the long run. I can't see a good way to do this...
  10. Should we reverse the order of the answers? Normally you'd say "Should we do this? yes/no", but here we're going with "Should we do this? no/maybe/yes-with-caveats/yes". Is this neutral/going to lead to a fair answer?
  11. How do we determine consensus here? Maybe Arbcom can appoint some neutral editors who can do this?

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  2. Add to that, should we include a statement about WMF/WMDE's (non-)involvement here? I've seen a few statements that tried to portray Wikidata as something that's solely pushed by the WMF/WMDE, and I tried to add a paragraph to explain why this wasn't the case, but @Alsee: reverted it, and seems to think that the funding I've received to attend Wikimedia events somehow constitute "WMF's efforts to promote wikidata", despite the funding being awarded by independent committees/event organisers. To be clear: I think that Wikidata is a good thing *as an enwp community member*, and I'm not a WMF lacky... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The participation by WMF employees at the "status" talk page is all the evidence needed. I am still blown away that a director-level person came to en-WP and so nakedly - and with such lack of self-awareness - advocated for Wikidata use in Wikipedia. Ditto their unilaterial decision to use the "description" field as they have, despite objections. All with no clue of how clumsy they were being about roles and differences between communities. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That was at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs, and about descriptions from Wikidata? Nothing about infoboxes? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes at the status page Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I think everyone knows there are editors on both sides of the issue. (Does anyone really think this RFC is getting a snow close? Chuckle.) We don't need to waste a paragraph countering a non-existent theory zero people outside the WMF supports Wikidata-in-Wikipedia. What we need is an RFC to determine which side (if any) amounts to a consensus. Alsee (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, if this is a non-issue then it can be dropped. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
"We have a "Consequences" column that doesn't talk about the technical implementations (at least in some cases). When I've tried to add more about how things could be implemented, I've been reverted. How do we deal with this?": The early drafts had a lot more technical details - we deliberately removed them. People !voting in the RFC aren't expected to be template programmers. They don't want or need to know technical details. They just want to understand the the practical effects, as they will be seen by article-editors. They will want the language to be as plain as we can manage. We should put effort into removing even more of the technical details. We don't need to say "LUA module" to say that the results can be formatted, that we can control which wikidata values are requested, or that we can exclude wikidata items that don't have references. Alsee (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather we covered both the practical effects, and the technical implementation, and layer the information accordingly. That then helps both the technical and non-technical people understand what is being proposed at the level of detail that they want to see. I'm particularly worried about options that can't be technically implemented (e.g., the subst-only option in the current version, but also any additional options that people might suggest as the RfC runs). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee: Re [1], so what happens in the 'better' case (both for local and wikidata values)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Mike Peel, unless the rest of the RFC comes down as a hard-line in one direction or the other, I doubt any consensus is going to either (A) ban people from adding a better value locally or (B) ban people from deleting a bad local value to uncover a better wikidata value. Those cases were not addressed, and were not restricted.
The purpose was to prevent a massive and utterly wasteful editwar. First, note that we're only discussing content-neutral changes here. Let's say one side has been making a massive number of bot-like edits deleting local values to uncover the same value at wikidata, or copying a local value to wikidata then deleting the local value to uncover the wikidata version. Let's say the other side starts making a massive number of bot-like edits copying wikidata values into empty local fields. (In some case that may simply be by revert-previewing edits which deleted local values, and saving the revert if it changes none of the rendered content.) There is currently nothing to stop you from making an unlimited number of such edits, and nothing to stop me from making an unlimited number of such edits. The net result is that we both waste our time flipping articles back and forth, with neither of us even changing what's displayed in the article.
If the RFC ends up with any result where display of local values co-exists with display of Wikidata values, we need to shut down one of the two content-neutral edits. Either you (and other Wikidata-proponents) need to stop deleting local content for the sole purpose of deleting local content, or I want the community to tell me (and other Wikidata-critics) NOT to start restoring/filling local fields just to provide a local copy.
P.S. I think 4C is a needlessly awkward variant of 4B. I also consider 4D a painfully unhelpful status-quo / synonym for no-consensus. However there may be other editors who defend 4C and 4D. Alsee (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
This rationale makes sense to me. Thank you for explaining the thinking. Mike Peel (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I have some additional questions:

  2. "Subst-only" really does't make sense to me. I've moved it from Q1 to Q4, as it's more about *how* we use Wikidata values rather than *if* we use them. But I still can't see how we'd keep this synchronised in the long term, plus I can't see how we'd routinely substitute a lot of the more complex cases (i.e., any that are beyond a simple, single call to Module:Wd - although this can be done once one-way, maintaining the connection is going to be difficult).
  3. Do we want to have a standardised phrase for referring to infoboxes using Wikidata? "Wikidata-integrated infoboxes" maybe (wii, it was good enough for Nintendo), or "Wikidata-embedded infoboxes"? "Wikidata infoboxes" isn't right, as these aren't infoboxes on Wikidata.
  4. I'm assuming that we want to have unique short names, rather than duplicating them, so that people responding to the RfC can refer to them without ambiguity. If that's not right, please say why!
  5. I can't see the point of 2A ("Wikidata is not used in infoboxes.") if we have 1A ("Infoboxes with Wikidata integration are not allowed in mainspace"). I'd assume that people that !vote 1A would stop at that, which renders 2A pointless. Or if we want people to be able to say "no, no, no, no", then we need to add another option to both Q3 and Q4.

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Mike Peel, Regarding #13, when I first saw the SUBST option I thought it was weird and I didn't give it much thought. Now that you ask about it, I see the point. It's pretty much the only way to include Wikidata-retrieval in template code in a way that answers many of the key objections. In particular consider 3E: Policy-compliant and the consequence Once wikidata has been enabled for a field, any changes at Wikidata will be imported automatically. It is also not possible to reliably review changes after they have been imported. With live wikidata integration, each person who edits an article will silently import new wikidata values. That person generally has no awareness they are doing so, they are unlikely to spot or review those changes, and there is zero page-history log of those changes. With the SUBST option, the editor explicitly knows they are importing values. They (presumably) examine those changes before saving, they are responsible for whatever changes they import, and all of those changes show up in the page history and user history. And of course all of those values can be seen and edited locally without needing to know wikidata. It's basically an automated way to copy-paste from Wikidata, with the normal expectation that all editors are responsible for respecting EnWiki policies in all edits.
The SUBST option is an oddball. I can't decide whether it belongs under question 1, question 4, or some awkward question 1.5.
Regarding #6 ARBCOM, I think we just ignore them for now. If/when ARBCOM makes a decision regarding an RFC, everything will revolve around exactly what they come up with.
Regarding #11 determining consensus, assuming ARBCOM doesn't get involved we should probably line up a panel of 3 admins as closers. That can be done around the same time the RFC gets posted. (Assuming it gets posted.)
Regarding #3, a section for How reliable is Wikidata information?, I'm temped to say scrap the undeveloped section. The RFC is already painfully long, and I fear trying to build that section would be difficult, contentious, and fuzzy.
Regarding #7 too many !vote options, I agree the RFC is an ugly mess. However looking over the options, the multiple options appear to be relatively-manageable if they are in an unambiguous progressive sequence. We mostly did a good job of that. However 4E SUBST is a problem, and 1E Separate-Wikidata-version is a problem. The case-by-case options also don't fit as sequential, but case-by-case seems to stand-alone adequately at the end. Maybe the case-by-case options could be relabeled as 2X 3X and 4X, more clearly splitting them off of the sequences.
Regarding #15 unique short names, nice catch. I definitely support keeping short names unique. Alsee (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

What does "Require-source" mean?

Currently, the RfC uses the phrase "Require-source" without defining what this means. I think there's an interest in not having claims that have a reference with "inferred from (P3452)" and "imported from (P143)" count as being sourced. "inferred from (P3452)" gets used in Wikidata to cite other Wikidata items and "imported from (P143)" gets mostly used for importing data from Wikipedias. I think it would make sense to define having a source for the sake of enwiki as having "stated in (P248)" and/or "reference URL (P854)". At the current state of Wikidata we might have a further rule to ban constraint violating "stated in (P248)". ChristianKl (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's talked about a bit in Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017_RfC_draft#What_about_references.3F, but probably could be clearer. I know that we ignore "imported from", but I'm not sure about "inferred from" (I didn't realise that existed) - @RexxS: does Module:WikidataIB also ignore that one when using onlysourced=yes? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mike: at present, Module:WikidataIB looks at line 172 for the word 'Wikipedia' in the text of the reference and doesn't count that reference if it's found: if not ref:find("Wikipedia") then refs = refs + 1 end (of course you can override that by setting |onlysourced=false). That's a quite unsophisticated test, but in practice it works quite well, by-and-large (i.e. it doesn't matter whether it's "imported from" or "inferred from" "whatever-language" Wikipedia). It would be easy to expand it to reject other unreliable sources: expanding to if not ref:find("Wikipedia") and not ref:find("Wikidata") then ... would eliminate references sourced to Wikidata, and so on. Optionally, I could test for the presence of inferred from (P3452) or imported from Wikimedia project (P143) and reject on those grounds instead, or as well. At some point though, we start throwing out the baby with the bathwater, because some "inferred from" references may be reliable – it all depends on what was in the editor's (or bot-writer's) mind when they imported the claims. Perhaps we should enforce strict filtering now and leave the option to relax it later as Wikidata's content is gradually cleaned up. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Crosswiki issues

I'm not sure where the RfC is being developed, but Arbcom just passed a motion that's relevant. I wrote up some recommendations for RfCs like this one a while back at User:Dank/RFCs that may or may not still be relevant. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Um, see the page this talk page is attached to. ;-) Constructive edits would be appreciated! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
We'll probably need several RfCs before this is done. I don't know if this will wind up being the first one or not. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Bot import of data

I am not sure why only two options are discussed - either to transclude data from Wikidata, or to ignore them (with a variety of options, like opt-in, opt-out, local override etc). However, a bot import of data (similar to Listeria bot) solves a number of issues: (i) watchlist issue, since all edits are now done on Wikipedia; (ii) vandalism on Wikidata issue - if the data are clearly inapproppriate, they can be reverted on sight, since there are way more people watching articles on the English Wikipedia than people watching Wikidata items; there should be an option of marking the edit as Wikidata vandalism, so that the Wikidata community will be able to act on it; (iii) sourcing - the bot can be instructed to only import properly sourced date (either whitelisted sources or not blacklisted sources).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-automated imports would be better, as they give the opportunity for the importer to check case by case that the data is appropriate, and if not, indicate exactly who was responsible for importing it. A moderate error rate is acceptable, and expected from editors, a massive importation of unchecked data is the sort of thing that should result in a block and possibly further sanctions for the bot operator. It is by no means clear that it is even possible to identify properly sourced data on Wikidata yet. I may be misinterpreting the issues with multiple stage circular referencing and the identification thereof. If so please enlighten me. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Every statement on Wikidata has a source (or multiple sources, or none). A bot task can specify (for example) that only statements with sources on the whitelist are transferred, or that unsourced statements and statements sourced to Wikimedia projects are not transferred, or something more complicated (I for example always advocate that it is ok to source images and commons categories to Commons, but it is possibly not ok to source other things to Commons).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
No need of a bot for that. Lua code can do the same. Can specify a set of black/whitelist sources as a parameter of an infobox. TomT0m (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Bot generates changes on the Wikipedia watchlist, lua code does not. At this point, making changes visible on the watchlist is the only way to engage Wikipedia editors.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
phab:T174022 is on the road, which means that multi content revision is in its way to be implemented. If I’m not wrong that history problem falls under a MCR usecase, under the « page components » item (phab:T105845). A lot of work to do it seems but a huge step is already done. Not sure that’s worth the effort to develop a bot infrastucture that is likely to be obsoleted not that far away. TomT0m (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
TomT0m, I don't think Multi-content revision (MCR) is relevant here. MCR would allow extra objects (ouside of the wikitext) to be "attached" to a page.
LUA is useless for addressing the main concerns with wikidata imports. Bot import could at least address some of the issues. If a bot imports a wikidata value, that puts the value in the wikitext where it can be seen and edited in the local wikitext. It also generates the usual page-history, watchlist, and other tracking entries. However bot import still doesn't address any of the concerns about using external content, wikidata itself, and it leaves messy issues of controlling what should/shouldn't be imported. If I put in a value I don't want a bot edit-warring me. Whatever "solution" we came up to control bot-import, I don't want a bot edit-warring a new user who knows squat about that "solution". Any form of auto-import is ugly. Alsee (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Listeriabot has been disallowed in the mainspace because it caused problems, the main one being that it overruled all local changes, which turned out to be unwanted and rather confusing. This proposal still presumes that in general, Wikidata is more up-to-date and maintained than enwiki, which is in many (most?) cases not true. It makes no sense to transclude data from a less well-maintained site to a more maintained one (in the sense of additions, vandalism patrol, ...). Using Listeriabot (or soomething similar) for supporting pages (project space, user space, talk space) is being done and in some cases useful, to compare with the actual articles. But using such a bot to actually populate and maintain articles is not the way forward. Fram (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a valid opinion, but my question was why is it not considered as an option at this RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Ymblanter, it wasn't included in the RFC because you're the first person to suggest it. We've kept work on the RFC relatively peaceful by pretty much including everything that someone was significantly motivated to include. In the abstract, I agree that you've raised an alternative that could go on the list-of-everything. However as a practical matter, it is an extremely complicated option that raises more questions that it would answer. (Starting with all of the Listeriabot issues.) I think trying to include the bot option would threaten to overburden an already overly complex RFC. The RFC currently has twenty four options that could theoretically combine in one thousand three hundred and forty four 1176 ways. So.... pretty please with a cherry on-top... try to keep the RFC manageable. Alsee (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It is of course complicated but my understanding is that every specific infobox (or may be even specific field in a specific infobox) would require a separate bot task approved in a usual way. Indeed there are too many options but they are generally black and white - whereas I think this one has a chance to become a compromise solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
And, if you ask me, I would just put four options, each leading to a separate follow-up RfC: (i) not include anything from Wikidata; (ii) only include things which already have consensus, like commonscat; (iii) semi-automatic bot import; (iv) automatic inclusion with restrictions to be determined. (iii) and (iv) can be combined.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I can see the point of bot-importing infobox data from enwp to Wikidata (ideally with references, where those can be found in the infoboxes). However, I can't see the point in doing it the other way around. One of the big benefits to using Wikidata is to reduce the number of times a piece of information is needlessly repeated (which increases the chances of some of them being wrong); increasing the number of times the same piece of information is copied to different places increases the odds that the data will get out of sync and be wrong in some places. Plus, there's the whole issue of what happens when local information is changed - and how to share that with the other Wikimedia projects using the same info. So, scarily, I kinda agree with Fram here. :-/ Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not see how a bot transfer can increase chances of smth going wrong, and this process will expose data to a large amount of eyes not available from Wikidata. If this is not implemented, I am afraid, I will vote for the exclusion of Wikidata since the problems are too large, and simple transclusion can not address them.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:convert

The latest version of the draft gives "template:convert" as an example of a template that uses Wikidata. Can you give some examples of where it is used, and why (what does it do that the template didn't do otherwise)? "What links here" gives many, many pages, but it seems that whenever "convert" is invoked, it claims that the Wikidata version is linked as well, no matter if it actually used or not. Fram (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

See the infobox in South Pole Telescope for an example of it in action. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but that doesn't explain why that uses a /Wikidata version of the convert template. You could easily fetch the data from Wikidata, and convert it locally, no? I don't see why you would create a /Wikidata version of this specific template, which is about the most fixed template ever (new functionality may be added, but the values need to be fixed and ultra-protected, not left to Wikidata surely?) Using Wikidata for this template, with the current situation of Wikidata and protections, seems like a very bad idea. Fram (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm just going to ping @Johnuniq here, resist ranting about your particular view of Wikidata, regret replying to your question as always, and just leave it there. Mike Peel (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually, looking at the code for Template:Infobox telescope, I see a lot of invocations of "convert" (good), and none of "convert/Wikidata" (better yet); so the mystery to me remains, where is convert/wikidata actually used (and when that is solved, why?). Fram (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
So, you add a template to the RfC but don't know where or why it is used? Fram (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I know both where and why it's used... Mike Peel (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
But you refuse to give that information? And the information you do give is wrong? Brilliant... Fram (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing that I've said above was wrong. You can figure this out by reading through the talk pages. Although I know that I shouldn't feed a troll, I still believe in openness, so the tl;dr version is that {{convert}} supports Wikidata natively, when provided with the property number and relevant unit conversion through the infobox - there is no separate Wikidata version. It works very well in every case I've seen - but I'm sure you'll post a trolling argument against that shortly. Mike Peel (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
A normal usage of {{convert}} looks like this:
{{convert|12.3|m|abbr=on}} → 12.3 m (40 ft)
If you edit this page (or edit this section and preview it without making any changes), "Templates used in this preview" at the bottom will show three convert modules, none of which mention Wikidata.
By contrast, putting the following in a sandbox and previewing would show that convert's Wikidata modules are used:
{{convert|input=P2386|qid=Q1513315|abbr=on}}
That syntax is intended for use in templates that invoke convert—it should never be used in the wikitext of an article. The parameter input=P2386 tells convert to get its input from the Wikidata property diameter (P2386) for a specified item (qid). The qid=Q1513315 parameter identifies South Pole Telescope via the Wikidata item South Pole Telescope (Q1513315). Normally qid is omitted; the result is that convert uses the item associated with the current page. The point of all this is that an infobox can ask convert to get the inputs from Wikidata, and those inputs are available for all Wikipedias. Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Right, that's the cause of all these strange conversions to "square feet", no matter how big the original unit is. Things like "4 km2 (43,000,000 sq ft)" or "226.5 km2 (2.438×109 sq ft)" I encounter in the WHS infoboxes before conversion. So it is indeed used, but whether it is an example which is convincing of why using Wikidata is beneficial is doubtful. Fram (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
... which is trivial to change by using some if statements ... Mike Peel (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Possibly, but meanwhile these things where in live articles for 6 months (usually wrong anyway) making many articles worse. Just one of many things with that template which had that effect. Oh well, at least that one is on the way out. Fram (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Linking to wikidata

An RfC has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Linking to wikidata. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata living people RfC

There is an ongoing Wikidata RfC relating to privacy and living people which editors may be interested in and which could inform the construction of this RfC. Jc86035 (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What remains to be done before we make this live?

To do list

Discussion

Pinging people who have edited the RfC or the talk page so far: @Johnuniq, Nikkimaria, Magnus Manske, Pbsouthwood, Alsee, RexxS, Snuge purveyor, and Agathoclea @SlimVirgin, Francis Schonken, Jytdog, Capankajsmilyo, Wnt, Tamwin, Jc86035, TheDJ, John of Reading, and Bazonka @Risker, Doc James, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), Fram, Doug Weller, ChristianKl, TomT0m, and Dank - apologies if I missed anyone!

We should make this RfC live soon. The watchlist issue seems to have settled down now, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC:_Linking_to_wikidata has been closed, and there aren't any other Wikidata-related RfCs or major temporary issues that I'm aware of that might unduly bias the outcome, so now seems like a good time to start this RfC.

So, what else needs to be done before we make this live? Please could everyone look through the RfC text again and raise any concerns that remain? I've started a to-do list above. I suggest everyone adds things to that as needed, but if anyone wants to significantly reword or delete a point then we should discuss it below first. It would be good if we could start this in a week's time, say on the 3rd March, unless there are still issues to be resolved by then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Mike Peel and everyone else for coordinating this. I agree that it's probably time to open the discussion, because changes to the draft seem to be winding down. BTW, I just relabeled options 2G and 3G, the case-by-case options, to 2X and 3X, respectively, as they weren't really on the same spectrum as the others in their categories. If anyone objects, please bring it up, as always.
Regarding the discussion close, we should probably find 3 or 5 neutral admins to moderate/close the discussion. Preferably at least some of them should have experience handling things on this scale. Arbcom had a chance to appoint someone to take charge of this, and decided not to, instead providing discretionary sanctions and suggesting we (the community) run an RFC to handle it. If we really can't figure out who should resolve it, we could always request at ARCA that they appoint someone, but I think it would be better to settle this as a community matter. Perhaps we could ask at AN for some uninvolved admins to self-nominate? Tamwin (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
That's great @Mike Peel:. I agree we should start this RFC now. Just 1 query. What is the scope? Is it only Infoboxes or does it include lists and CiteQ too? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo: It's very deliberately aimed at infoboxes only, to try to keep the scope reasonably well defined. Even then it's become very long, and adding the other aspects in would muddy the water. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike Peel, please strike the suggested advertisement to d:Wikidata:Project chat. This is an EnWiki question, and I believe it would effectively fall under offsite WP:CANVASSing. Alsee (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alsee: Given that we're talking about Wikidata use, I think it makes sense to mention the discussion on Wikidata. Would it help if that was phrased differently from the other notices - on enwp we say "here's the discussion, please join in and add your !vote", and on wikidata we say "BTW, this discussion is happening on enwp" (or even, "BTW, this discussion is happening on enwp, please don't contribute unless you're active on enwp")? The RfC will surely be mentioned in Wikidata channels anyway, so this might be a way to mention it in a way that everyone here's happy with. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike Peel, I'm sure it seemed like a natural idea with no intent to canvass. I would be happy to seek uninvolved opinions on the Canvass talk page if you like. However as you saw, innocently/inadvertently advertizing a TFD at a Wikidata conference resulted in a mess and drama.
Aside from being offsite, under canvassing guideline Inappropriate notification the problem is Audience: Partisan. There was recently an RFC on which sister sites should appear in EnWiki search results. Advertizing that RFC on one (or more) of those sister sites would create the same mess. The offsite partisan audience would result in a disruptive swarm voting for their pet project. Rephrasing does not help. Not even if you could magically enforce the "please don't contribute unless you're active on enwp". Let's say I'm in the fanclub for band X. At the fanclub forums I post "There's an enwiki afd". Only editors can understand what it says. Only editors can find the AFD. So let's say I successfully only summoned existing EnWiki editors. The advertizement location selectively notifies&activates editors who read fanclub X forums. Audience: Partisan. Effect: Votestack. Alsee (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel:. "... don't contribute unless you're active on enwp". How can this be enforced? Is there mechanism to check contributions of all voters to determine whether they're active on enwp or not?–Ammarpad (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alsee: OK, I've struck the Wikidata project chat. I've added talk pages of infobox templates currently using Wikidata info; is that OK, or is that also too partisan? @Ammarpad: On whether people are active on enwp or not: that's easy to do by looking at voters' user contributions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike Peel thank you for for striking Wikidata project chat. As for "infobox templates currently using Wikidata"... a hundred pages is getting rather spammy. But more significantly this issue is at least equally relevant to infobox templates that don't use Wikidata. Both kinds of templates could be affected in contrasting but equally significant ways. Posting to every infobox_Talk would be extreme. I think we'll get abundant coverage advertizing to Pump, CENT, Talk:Wikidata, and WikiProject Infoboxes. If you want another, add Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates to the list. It has more traffic and page watchers than WikiProject Infoboxes. Alsee (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The options are complex, and some combinations are mutually incompatible. How will this be managed when closing? I foresee a large number of cases where it will be necessary to explain to an editor why their !vote combination cannot be implemented, and not only because many will not read and understand the preamble. This could get complicated, but this is a complicated problem we are addressing and I dont see any obvious way to simplify it. We shall just have to see what happens. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    Peter (Southwood) we might get a badly split no-consensus, but I think any significant contradictory result is mostly theoretical. It's up to the closer(s) to figure out what it all means. That's why they get paid the big bucks and showered with accolades. Or.... maybe somebody clicks 'thanks' on the closing-edit. I get that occasionally on my closes. Sometimes I even get two or three. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not experienced with enwiki RfCs, so I have to ask how the result is going to be evaluated? Relative majorities in each of the four questions? That would be a heavily biased evaluation mode, since (at least in questions 1 and 2) there are many pro-Wikidata options competing with only one con-Wikidata option. For example in Q1, consider 15 voters for 1A and 10 voters for each of the five options 1B to 1X. In total, 50 voters would like to allow some sort of Wikidata use, but 15 con-Wikidata voters would win. The same applies to question 2, where one con-Wikidata option and six pro-Wikidata options are proposed. I understand that this cannot be solved with one simple yes/no question, but to avoid this imbalance, an initial question that offers "no use at all vs. yes with conditions as defined in the following questions" would be necessary. If "no use at all" wins a majority, all other questions can be ignored, otherwise they define how it will be done, without mixing in the question whether Wikidata use should be done at all. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    MisterSynergy setting aside the X options, questions 123 have the options well sequenced. Closing is more complicated than just counting !votes, but if it's split as you describe the result should be approximately 1C 2C 3C. That approximately balances the case for "more" with the case for "less". Alsee (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. This implies that pro-Wikidata participants have to consider “tactical voting”; specifically that one has to favor strong pro-Wikidata options over weaker ones that one would otherwise really prefer, to make sure that there is substantial momentum on the pro-Wikidata side. I am sceptical that a substantial part of the participants are aware of that problem, and I am also sceptical whether the evaluation, which apparently has a lot of freedom on the side of the evaluators, will properly consider this aspect. It looks very difficult at least, if not even practically impossible. Mind that this RfC is a pretty big one that will likely attract lots of participants and input.
    Thus I strongly suggest to untangle these two questions: (1) whether to allow Wikidata usage in English Wikipedia (or more specifically in infoboxes) at all, and (2) with several sub-questions, how to allow it, conditionally depending on Wikidata usage acceptance in question 1 of course. That would even make the evaluation much easier. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    Or the same for anti-Wikidata participants? ;-) I'd hope that everyone would be honest in their !voting, and that rationales would also be taken into account when closing, although that does make the close even more difficult. On the untangling - (1) is what "Can Wikidata infoboxes be used in mainspace?" tries to address, with the others then going into the details. That's keeping within the specific context of infoboxes, as I think widening the scope would complicate things even further. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    MisterSynergy as Mike notes rationales are important and any tactics would go in both directions. However if someone has a midway position, any 'tactical' extreme vote would generally be counterproductive. A radical tactical vote mostly just removes yourself from the middleground debate. It would not shift the median position (and would be unlikely to budge consensus) unless it shifts the outcome away from your desired result. Alsee (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • 1X needs to be pulled out of question 1, it's largely independent of the other options. I'm not thrilled with tacking it on as an extra question though. Does anyone have any thoughts or ideas on what to do with 1X? Alsee (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    Unless there's a clear alternative, I suggest we just leave it as 1X. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose launching the RfC in its current form: the intro is TL;DR, so instead of reading it most !voters will not read it, and !vote from their prejudice anyhow: a succinct intro might be perused before !voting; There's too much prejudice built in to the !voting area, particularly a few editors involved in the preparations have marginalised options they apparently don't like in "..X" options, instead of keeping them in their natural sequence; And some of the background has changed, as discussed below in #Meaning of recently concluded "linking to Wikidata" RfC?, e.g. Wikidata infoboxes, apart from drawing info from Wikidata, also *link to Wikidata*, typically with "edit on Wikidata" type of links: seen the lack of consensus in the MoS RfC on such linking, a question about it in the "Infoboxes & Wikidata" RfC seems unavoidable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Francis Schonken: I'm sorry if that's how my edit came across. It was certainly not my intent to marginalize any options (I barely have an opinion, and wouldn't be very upset about any outcome, although I would like there to be an outcome). Rather, it was my thinking that on question 2, the answers ranged from anti- to pro- wikidata, and on question 3 they ranged from permissive to requiring refs. The problem is, a case by case solution doesn't really fit on that spectrum. That's why I moved it to an X option. I still don't think it fits, but I'd like to understand why you think that's where those options fit in sequence. Care to discuss? Tamwin (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    Options 2C, 2D and 2E are far too technical. At least the explanation is: this are not "consequences" that can be understood by a broad readership, but technical programmer's instructions, without even making clear for a non-technical participant in the RfC whether this programming would implement the option correctly.
    Whether or not the sequence is "right", no option should be marked "..X". --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of recently concluded "linking to Wikidata" RfC?

  • While I will not stop this RfC from happening of course (I have also started RfCs against objections from others, so...), it only addresses one aspect of Wikidata use on enwiki. Judging from the recently closed RfC on Wikidata linking, which failed because two separate questions were mixed in one RfC (linking of specific items to their wd item inside the text of articles, and linking to Wikidata anywhere on enwiki), it was clear that there is considerable opposition against any use of Wikidata on enwiki (excluding the left hand column interwikilinks). An RfC on Wikidata should first set out the baselines, i.e. what kind of use of Wikidata on enwiki (mainspace, cats and templates) is acceptable in general (from "none" to "mandatory wherever possible", with a range of possibilities inbetween), and only then focus on smaller aspects like the exact use in infoboxes, lists, templates like "official website", ... If you don't include these questions, the rather vocal "don't use Wikidata anywhere at all" group will probably enter the RfC anyway and may turn it into a trainwreck. Settling that question first may make a specific rfC for infoboxes (if it is still needed then) run smoother. Fram (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I suppose the "linking to Wikidata" RfC, initiated on the MoS talk page of all places, took us all by surprise. One of its main participants got blocked during the course of that RfC, and there were related TfDs and RfDs (most of them resulting in delete, and one TfD in "can no longer be used in mainspace"). I concur with Fram that it might be wise to take a look now what all of this means for the planned "Infoboxes and Wikidata" RfC before launching it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say the WT:MOS RfC failed, I would say it was framed as a wide-ranging debate on several issues, and people took it that way, rather than pushing for consensus. It succeeded in giving us useful information for the next RfC, I think. I get that much of the text here preceded that RfC, so there was no dishonesty in leaving the two recent RfCs out of the introduction, but before this goes live, changes are needed to avoid the appearance of dishonesty. The two RfCs that just closed had lots of comments that addressed are relevant to one or more of these questions, the ones at WT:MOS and WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 145#RfC: Populating article descriptions magic word. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC) I noticed a similar problem at WT:FAC#Short descriptions; see that discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As I've said above, I think that widening the scope here wouldn't really help. I think that keeping the focus on infoboxes gives a practical problem to think about, rather than the more general abstract one. Maybe we should see how this goes, and then think about whether we need a 'do we want to use Wikidata at all' RfC afterwards.
  • @Dank: As you say, those RfCs came after this one was drafted. They are also somewhat tangential to the scope of this one (infoboxes vs short descriptions vs in-line links), so it's not obvious to me where they should be mentioned. But if you an see a good place to add them, then please go ahead and edit the page, and we can see how it looks. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Question 4

I originally created question 4 to address a simple binary problem. In the status quo, or any outcome where local values and Wikidata values co-exist, there has been and will be an unresolved editing dispute. Some editors have been mass-deleting local values from infoboxes, for the primary purpose to making the infobox to retrieve the same information from Wikidata instead. This has little or no impact on the reader-view of the article. On the other hand some editors have been restoring deleted values. And again, this has little or no impact on the reader-view. Both sides are acting in good faith. Both sides believe their edits are beneficial. It is gross waste of work for the two sides to run around reversing each other. The point of the question was to put a halt to one of the two kinds of edits.

The question has since grown into a Frankenstein monster, and even worse, it fails to solve the original problem. It now has some 'intense' options to essentially kill import of Wikidata values or essentially kill local values, but the central options (local data precedence and Case-by-case) completely fail to address the original problem. If local values can be filled-in or deleted to display essentially the same content, in which direction shall we halt the wasteful contradictory editing?

I'd really like to simplify this section, but more importantly the section needs to actually answer the identified conflict.

Pinging Francis Schonken as the most recent major editor of the section, but invite all discussion. Alsee (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

So, essentially, if there are only the two questions you propose, then whatever is the outcome of Question 4 it would invalidate all outcomes of other questions (1 to 3) if such outcome would permit that "local values and Wikidata values co-exist"? We need to know which rules apply if and when the community would think it best that "local values and Wikidata values co-exist", or question 4 is not independent from the other questions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken I definitely wasn't suggesting question 4 would invalidate questions 1 to 3. Unless Wikidata infoboxes are excluded completely, there will be infoboxes that display existing local content AND which seek to pull Wikidata when local values are missing. Anyone can add/correct/improve information by editing locally or by editing Wikidata. Those edits are judged on whether they are content-improvements. The dispute is content-neutral edits. What if one editor is deleting a local values just so the same information will be pulled from Wikidata? What if another editor is restoring or filling in the same values locally. Neither edit materially alters what is displayed in the article. Both edits are currently permissible. Both edits have been happening. It is a matter of disputed opinion which is preferable. It's possible to include options that effectively mandate or eliminate local values (currently 4A 4B 4D 4E[2]), but my immediate concern is to address wasteful contradictory content-neutral edits. The status-quo (4C) leaves the dispute unaddressed. Alsee (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems like this could be resumed in one question: "Should keeping a double of a Wikidata value on Wikipedia be...
  1. prohibited (meaning that the local value should be deleted)?
  2. allowed (meaning that it is not allowed to delete it if someone adds it in Wikipedia)?
  3. mandatory (e.g. for comparison when the Wikidata claim changes)?"
Is this the question you would like to see answered? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken I'm having trouble deciding if that is the same as what I meant. Your language sounds stronger and more proscriptive than I had in mind. At this time, I think we want to avoid strong proscriptions regarding contributions that add/correct/improve content.
The immediate issue is bulk, content-neutral, deletion-or-filling of local values. Alsee (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken - on reading your post again I better see that "double of a Wikidata value" meant a "content-neutral" edit. Rather than "prohibited (meaning that the local value should be deleted)" I'd phrase it may be deleted / should not be added. The word "prohibited" really threw me off. And for the reverse, may be added / should not be deleted. So yeah, that's about what I had in mind. The phrasing really threw me offtrack for a minute. Alsee (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for all the explicitness, but you were describing a situation of edit-warring: edit-warring is not generally prevented by friendly recommendations – one needs very strict, clear, no-filibustering-allowed rules or editors will invent a circumvention to justify going rogue, dramaboard, and whatnot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree this needs to be simplified, possibly all the way back to the binary question (4A and 4B in the version from yesterday)... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
If questions 1–3 result in either "always Wikidata" or "never Wikidata" (or: Wikidata claims and local data can not coexist), then the former 4A (Keep-local) and 4B (Migrate) options need no longer be considered for being redundant, and they are completely useless (i.e. could only lead to contradiction) if questions 1–3 result in some form of co-existence. So, they should be the first options that should be removed from question 4. Question 4 needs to answer how to handle co-existence practically, in the event co-existence is what is resulting from questions 1–3. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I guess 4C is the problem, especially the first one. While all other options helps in decision, the first 4C option (first one) keeps the fight unanswered. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken other than A1 and 2A (prohibiting Wikidata), questions 1 through 3 say absolutely nothing about whether local values should be added or removed. Barring some major diversion from the status quo, a Wikidata infobox means it pulls Wikidata when local values are missing. Barring some major diversion from the status quo, a local value can be inserted to override a problematical Wikidata value. And that means the identical value can be added or removed with no visible effect. Alsee (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Re. "... status quo, a Wikidata infobox means it pulls Wikidata when local values are missing" – not exactly: not all infobox values can be overridden manually: the infobox needs to be programmed that way, and believe me, that is far from a universally implemented principle in current Wikidata infoboxes. If that would have been the case, a separate "local" infobox would not have been necessary when going back to local data for the WHS infobox: the Wikidata infobox simply didn't (and still doesn't afaik) accept local values for all parameters. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Coding-wise, it's possible for a Wikidata infobox to support local values for all parameters, and that's generally what I've done so far. Let's not go into the mess that is the WHS infobox situation. Mike Peel (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Re. "Coding-wise, it's possible for a Wikidata infobox to support local values for all parameters", exactly, as I said: it needs to be programmed that way (I never implied that it "couldn't" be programmed that way).
Re. "Let's not go into the mess that is the WHS infobox situation" – pardon??? we need to ask questions that prevent that mess from ever happening again. Looking at that mess is exactly what we need to do do now, in order to ask the right questions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Re. "that's generally what I've done so far" – has this sound principle for Wikidata infoboxes been inscribed in some guidance somewhere? Asking the question, in this RfC, whether it should be a mandatory feature of Wikidata infoboxes looks like a good idea to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Question 1

I think there's a dispute in the nature and sequence of question 1. Pinging Francis Schonken as the most recent major editor of the section, but I invite all discussion.

As I see it, question 1 is on the criteria for when an infobox can or should be converted to Wikidata. The sequence, as I see it, is:

  1. Overriding global consensus against converting infoboxes to Wikidata.
    • (Variant: Limited exception for "experiments".)
  2. A real consensus is needed to convert a particular template. (At least an advertized RFC, or Village Pump, or some dedicated place or process.)
  3. A "passive consensus" where one or more Wikidata enthusiasts can pick templates to effectively unilaterally convert at will. They just need to post on Template_Talk and claim "local consensus" because generally no one watches Template_Talk pages. Note that months work and disruption may result if an empty "consensus by silence" conversion later gets reversed by a real consensus.
  4. Overriding global consensus for Wikidata infoboxes. Full rollout. Everyone can and should convert all infoboxes to Wikidata at their earliest convenience. Any objections can be dismissed with a link to this RFC consensus.

The status quo is effectively #3.

A related problem is the "Separate Wikidata version" option. Pulling it out as a separate question is ugly, I don't know if there are objections to delisting it, however including it in question 1 appears to create a sequencing problem. At first it was at the bottom as a 1X oddball item. However now there appears to be a dispute whether it belongs above or below the middle consensus items. More specifically, I object to placing it above the consensus items. Alsee (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that whenever you formulate a question, you can't resist to add some "steering" as to how you think it should be answered (e.g. "Note that months work and disruption may result...": that's a rationale for how you would answer the question, and so this should be in your answer at the !voting area – it is however not how the question should be asked).
For removing the "Separate Wikidata version" option: I would be OK with that (and already considered removing it). I suppose it was Mike Peel's question (anyhow, how Mike tried to address the WHS mess ultimately). My experience is that the Wikipedia community is averse from two separate templates for essentially the same type of thing, and that it is nearly offensive to the community to ask them something they have answered already uncountable times in TfDs. But if those who prepare this RfC are rather of the opinion that this question should be asked again for you-never-know what comes out of it this time, then maybe it should be kept so as to not regret afterwards that it wasn't asked properly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'd rather keep that option in, particularly as it's the most frequent way of doing that kind of template at the moment. I can't think of any better way of doing it than having it as "1X". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken I affirmatively-agree to removal of the "steering" text. We need to keep that portion painfully dry.
Mike Peel, can you picture how to get what your looking for in "Separate wikidata version" if we split it as some sort of sub question under #1? I'm trying to accommodate it, but I don't currently see how it integrates as an alternative to the other options. Alsee (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it does kinda sit in the middle. Take {{Infobox person/wikidata}} as an example. It started as an experiment, but headed over to a separate Wikidata version that was in use because there was demand for it. Getting consensus for that to be the main version would be hell-ish, so it sits as a separate version. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad - and that's probably what the answer to the question needs to say. Maybe that works for massively-used templates, but not for smaller ones (like {{Infobox telescope}}. Maybe it's a way of "let's experiment with this, and try things in mainspace, ahead of consensus to convert the main one over". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Support keeping the question in, in the position proposed by Mike, which indeed makes sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Ugh. I'm looking at "Separate wikidata version" again. It doesn't fit in the sequence, the subquestion idea doesn't seem to work, it will suffer a very awkward split with the other options if we make it a 1X, and unless there's a strong consensus the closer may have a really hard time figuring out how to relate various responses. Ouch. Alsee (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid that the question 1 in any form is not going to work - seen the RfC on the MOS I don't believe that we will ever be consensus for options 1 or 6, which roughly means that for every case we need to find our own way (options 2-5). All those options, if there is a preferential consensus, are prone to everlasting edit wars or to utter no-consensus situations. Option 2 results in edit warring over which version to use on articles, options 3-5 result in globally overridden local consensus problems or no global consensus status quo situations (as that becomes then for each infobox an 'option 1 or 6 question'). I don't know if a much more binary 'flowsheet' system would work:

  • 1 - do we want WikiData in infoboxes: yes (-> question 2) or no (done)?
  • 2 - do we want one infobox (-> questions 3 and 4) or a /wikidata clone? (-> question 3)
  • 3 - do we need local or global consensus for implementation? (done)
  • 4 - do we need to keep local data, or migrate all to WikiData? (done)?

And then a separate question for referencing status, or wait for that when the above tree has a definite answer.

With these multi-option cases, I foresee that we get a vote-distribution of 13-17-20-20-17-13 (or a steeper Gaussian), without any significant preference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And how long do you guess it will take someone to raise the rather pertinent issue or option of "yes to Wikidata infoboxes on factual, fixed, neutral subjects" (like telescopes or so), but "no to Wikidata infoboxes on more contentious or difficult subjects" (biographies or specifically BLPs, political subjects, ...)? Or "Only use Wikidata infoboxes with reliably sourced data" -> "And how are you going to determine this, as Wikidata has different standards (Findagrave, ...)"? It probably won't work, but we should have an open-question RfC "What do "you" see as the role and limits of Wikidata on enwiki". Outline the actual current possibilities and uses, and point to the multiple RfCs or large discussions that have been had, and then let people discuss. Perhaps some consensus will emerge, more likely some actual hard, binary choices will emerge which then may lead to a second RfC specifically about these choices. The "linking" RfC is not very relevant, as it was badly formulated (was it about bluelinking inside article text, or linking to Wikidata anywhere at all?) and at the wrong place for such a discussion probably. But even so it indicated that there are many people already (or still) with the "no Wikidata at all" position. Infoboxes are just one aspect or symptom, the basic choices are

  • No Wikidata at all
  • Only reliably referenced Wikidata (how to determine? We don't have the right to change Wikidata's sourcing requirements, which means that a whitelist or blacklist should be maintained here)
  • Only Wikidata on non-contentious subjects / not on BLPs
  • Only Wikidata after some technical changes (watchlist! But also page protection and editor blocking)
  • Only Wikidata for "external links" (authority control and similar templates)
  • Wikidata wherever possible
  • ...

It would be more useful to first focus on these, and then use the conclusions of that RfC to see whether a specific one on Infoboxes is necessary. Fram (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Status

It's been 15 days since any comment / edit. Is the RFC ready for rollout? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think there are a few things discussed above that weren't finalised / didn't reach consensus. But I think we're pretty close to finished (and/or tired of arguing with each other on this page ;-) ). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Starting on 6th April

@Johnuniq, Nikkimaria, Magnus Manske, Pbsouthwood, Alsee, RexxS, Snuge purveyor, and Agathoclea @SlimVirgin, Francis Schonken, Jytdog, Capankajsmilyo, Wnt, Tamwin, Jc86035, TheDJ, John of Reading, and Bazonka @Risker, Doc James, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), Fram, Doug Weller, ChristianKl, TomT0m, Dank, and Beetstra This is dragging on. The conversations above mostly petered out without consensus, and I suspect that we're all roughly equally unhappy and need the wider input from the community that running the RfC will yield. I've made a few tweaks to bring the page up to date at [3]. I suggest that any last-minute changes are made in the next few days, and I'll make this live on the evening of Friday 6th April. Is everyone equally happy/unhappy with that? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: do you have a link to any recent successfull RfC's that follow this exact format of questioning? I'd like to see what comments there were about the format / how questions were asked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: The closest I'm aware of was Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, which is the format I followed to start drafting this. This one is now rather more complex than that, though, but I can't see a good way to simplify it and keep everyone here happy-ish. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: so that puts me one the same line as User:Fram on this one, with concerns that I have expressed before .. I am concerned that this is too complex for an RfC, and that it will result in a maze of options without proper conclusion. But that is also just a personal observation ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Mike Peel, I do not object to running the RfC, and it will be interesting to see if Wikipedians can handle the complexity of the options. Nevertheless, the questions should be asked, and the responses may move things in a useful direction. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I have raised my concerns before, and nothing has changed for me. But that's just a personal observation, not some veto of course. Fram (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Let's get it over with. It'll be a shit show, and half the people will have no idea what they are voting for/against, but at least we will make a tiny step. Not sure yet if i'll participate myself, but good luck. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I personally see the RFC as quite straightforward and not as complex as it could have been. I also feel the RFC is mostly for people who knows the internal workings of things (those who handles templates, complex codes, wikidata, and everything in between), hence an RFC in simple English with clear options should not be so confusing for the intended readers. Just my personal thoughts. :-) As DJ says, let's get this over with. Cheers, Rehman 14:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for the ping. I think I want to make a change to the first paragraph, but just thinking about getting involved ... the horror, the horror. Can you hold off a couple of hours? - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dank: My plan is to start it in 3 hours from now, that work for you? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm done, I just now made my edit ... of the options I was considering, I went with the shortest and least obtrusive one, a link to "RfC: Linking to wikidata" (2018) under the See Also. Does that work for everyone? - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
That looks good, thanks Dank. Unless anyone has any last-minute points, I'll launch this shortly and send around notifications. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done, we're live! I've posted the notifications we talked about above, saying "An RfC on the use of Wikidata in infoboxes has just started. Please !vote and/or comment on the RfC page." If anyone thinks of other places it should be mentioned, please mention it there! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Structure

This isn't friendly to answer, and is going to be a nightmare to count. I'd strongly suggest separate !vote sections below each question. Jheald (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2018_Infobox_RfC/Archive_2&oldid=840013872"